I agree about the waste of time, but not for the reason's you've specified. I gave my reasons, you don't consider them any more valid than I consider vague correlatives and ancedotal evidence. After 49 pages the arguments have been covered. That's what I meant. Read them if you doubt. If you guys want to post every news article where some gun was used to defend someone ad infinitum and brag about your personal gun proficiency, knock yourselves out, it doesn't PROVE anything.

The question I asked several posts ago was how the possession of a gun prevents events which haven't happened. Its unanswerable since no one can prove the prevention of a non-event. They could believe it and announce it authoritatively but what would that mean? Nothing. No, I'm not just going to be convinced unless something is convincing, and since we both agree this is a waste of time, I'll leave you all to your repetitions.

So you don't consider the fact that you've stated point blank that you will accept nothing as proof to be a reason why trying to convince you is a waste of time? That's a little short on logic. Those are the reasons I stated, with which you apparently disagree.

What's more, I HAVE read all of the pages of this post. I did it before posting my first time.

I've never bragged about my own gun proficiency. I know how to shoot, and am fanatical about safety.

As for preventing events that haven't happened, isn't that sort of the definition of prevention? To suggest that the concept of prevention is worthless is sort of lame, isn't it?

"Well, if I get enough sleep, eat well-balanced meals, and wash my hands, I might prevent being sick."

"Preventing an event that hasn't happened is not possible."

"Oh, I guess I'll forget about trying to stay well."

The fact of the matter is this: People factor in environment and possibilities into their decisions, and when those possibilities include the potentiality that their mark has a gun, they decide the path of least resistance, which has less of a chance of getting them killed.

I will be interested in seeing the replies to your post. You should be working for a firearms rights group. I am probably the one he was talking about re" marksmanship abilities. In response to a post that gun enthusiasts kill innocent people when attempting to defend themselves, I stated my abilities. (I had an excellent shooting teacher when I was young.)

As for preventing events that haven't happened, isn't that sort of the definition of prevention? To suggest that the concept of prevention is worthless is sort of lame, isn't it?

"Well, if I get enough sleep, eat well-balanced meals, and wash my hands, I might prevent being sick."

"Preventing an event that hasn't happened is not possible."

"Oh, I guess I'll forget about trying to stay well."

There's a difference between taking precautionary measures in the hopes of preventing an unwanted event and being able to prove that the prevention took place because of one's measures. Of course its sensible to wear your seatbelt when riding in a car to minimize injury should you be in an accident, however its another thing to claim that prevention of injury when no accident has happened has occurred by wearing your seatbelt. That's the difference.

Its has been claimed here that merely having a gun prevents violent acts. I not saying people should not have guns if they want, I'm just questioning the logic behind the idea that merely having a gun has prevented anything. Quoted statistics, while being correlative, cannot be proven preventative.

Actually if you eat well balanced meals, wash your hands etc. you might prevent nothing at all. If you do so and you don't get sick that may not mean your efforts are the reason. You may not have become sick if you hadn't done anything by way of prevention. That's no reason not to do so either, you may lessen the risks of bacterial infection - but its about risk assessment not guarantees. Its simply a matter of the inability to prove a direct causative connection between your actions and prevention of a hypothetical occurance of a specific future event. Not only must a potential risk be assessed accurately but an appopriate preventative action is needed, not just anything which you can convince yourself will work because you happen to like it.

Years ago a man who wrote popular books about the healh benefits of running died after he collapsed while running. What did his advice and lifesytle prevent in his own case? Given his beliefs, what do you think he thought of the likelihood of his own death while in the act of trying to maximize his health?

Look, if you want to think that your gun ownership has prevented something if nothing has occurred to begin with, then there's nothing I can do except wish you happiness.

A Roswell Ga. liquor store clerk's cell phone may have saved his life when a would be robber tried to stab the clerk at Beverage Mart on Monday the knife dented the cell phone in the clerk's pocket but did not injure him. The clerk, 59 year old Joseph Wescott then pulled a gun and shot the man in the abdomen. The clerk was given the pistol by his son who is a a police officer.

The culprit arrived at a hospital ER 30 min. later. They reported the gunshot wound to police who arrived and waited till after surgery to make the arrest.

I just received a bulletin from two of my second amendment groups warning that a movement is quietly building in DC to ban pocket knives. It will likely fail but it shows the stupidity now rampant in the legislature. Will eating utensils and sharp sticks soon follow? Will it soon be illegal to carry prunings and fallen limbs to the curb for pick up?

I just received a bulletin from two of my second amendment groups warning that a movement is quietly building in DC to ban pocket knives. It will likely fail but it shows the stupidity now rampant in the legislature. Will eating utensils and sharp sticks soon follow? Will it soon be illegal to carry prunings and fallen limbs to the curb for pick up?

Slàinte,

Patch

So goes the think tank in Washington. They think they can protect us, heal us, feed us all for our own good, but who is going to protect us from thoses bozos?

A 32 year old ex Marine defended himself from a mountain lion attack in Shoshone National Forrest by utilizing a chain saw he was using to cut firewood for a campfire. (a downed/dead tree)

He was camping with his wife and two toddlers.

The lion was later tracked and finished off by Rangers after it attacked a tracking dog they were using. They said it appeared to be starving.

I suppose now there will be a push by the left to ban chain saws from national parks and forrests!

Slàinte,

Patch

No -- there the situation required a heavy rifle and a good marksman. Wounding a starving predator with a makeshift weapon that was unlikely to make a clean kill and seeing it go loose to attack a dog or another human was not ideal, although it was all that was available. Camping where there are known large predators, especially with a couple of babies, means somebody has to have a rifle -- lots of appropriately armed rangers with very frequent circulation of camp sites, which in a big park is expensive, or the camper him or herself. I'm not so sure about having a chain saw out there -- are you allowed to cut your own deadwood in those parks, or are you supposed to buy it and carry it in?

Another question -- why was the lion starving badly enough to go near humans with a fire? Habitat invaded, natural prey population compromised . ..also in need of solution.

A National Forest is not a park. One can cut wood in the forests, just as one can carry firearms. And for the most part NFs are not patrolled. There will be a few trail crews and such out and about, but no Ranger patrols outside of a few designated campgrounds. It is basically "The woods".

The San Juan National Forest is the largest tract of public hunting land in SW Colorado. Free permits were and probably still are issued to locals to cut Aspen trees within it's boundaries for fire wood to heat their homes. I spent many happy weeks hunting and photographing there after packing into the high country.

I recall back when the Colorado fish and game dept found that grizzlies were not extinct in the state. Those of us who spent time up there were fairly certain we were not seeing large black bear tracks. A guide had a client on a bow hunt for elk near Twin Peaks aka "The Spanish Sisters." The hunter was first attacked by the bear and the guide grabbed an arrow and began stabbing the bear with it. He then became the object of the attack and eventually all but the bear survived though quite the worse for wear.

When in the woods, you do what you have to. We are at the top of the food chain!